Competition Commissioner accused of rushing through Vodacom-Maziv deal block

[Hanno Labuschagne]

Competition Commissioner accused of rushing through Vodacom-Maziv deal block

Competition Commissioner Doris Tshepe has been accused of "pushing through" a ruling recommending that Vodacom's bid to buy a R13-billion stake in Maziv be blocked, Business Times reports.

Sources at the competition watchdog have told the publication that the decision — announced in August 2023 — was a split one, with two commissioners out of the four convinced that the deal should be permitted.

 

[Swa]

Corruption everywhere. Since when has the CC ever acted rational?

 

[AirWolf]

Should the ruling not include the reasons when published?

Alternatively, how can a ruling be issued if the reasons are not complete and clear at the time of the ruling?

 

[FiestaST]

Pretty Maziv deal indeed.

 

[neoprema]

Like we all know that Doris Tshepe and co are not getting massive cashbacks from whoever is benefiting by the deal not happening.. (or other plans)

 

[deweyzeph]

The Competition Commission's only reason for existing seems to be to stifle competition, not encourage it. Funny how they never have anything to say about Eskom's ridiculous monopoly or the Post Office's attempt at killing the private courier industry.

 

[Calkem]

The Competition Commission's only reason for existing seems to be to stifle competition, not encourage it. Funny how they never have anything to say about Eskom's ridiculous monopoly or the Post Office's attempt at killing the private courier industry.

This should be a highlight on why we need to encourage children to read

 

[Bad Ballie]

Competition commission is the one who ensure that people who can't pay them get a forced level playing field and those that can get what they want. Just another corrupt ANC body at best.

 

[deweyzeph]

Competition commission is the one who ensure that people who can't pay them get a forced level playing field and those that can get what they want. Just another corrupt ANC body at best.

Personally I find the very idea of a Competition Commission to be abhorrent. The single biggest threat to competition in South Africa is the government itself, not private companies. The government creates monopolies and oligopolies through legislation and red-tape, rent-seeking licensing requirements, bureaucracy and other high barriers to entry. If the CC wants to do something useful it should be aiming its resources at dismantling the stifling regulations and red-tape introduced by the government in various industries. It should not be sticking its nose into private deals between private companies.

 

[quovadis]

Should the ruling not include the reasons when published?

Still yet to see an article about why this may not be a good thing. I mean Vodacom buying a company that provides infrastructure to 8,000 base stations of their competitors could be seen as somewhat anti-competitive not to mention that DFA is essentially an infrastructure provider to the entire industry directly or indirectly. My gut and what I've argued is that the issue is not Vumatel but the DFA component that's been bundled into this Maziv entity.

 

[Petec]

Follow the money...

 

[deweyzeph]

Still yet to see an article about why this may not be a good thing. I mean Vodacom buying a company that provides infrastructure to 8,000 base stations of their competitors could be seen as somewhat anti-competitive not to mention that DFA is essentially an infrastructure provider to the entire industry directly or indirectly. My gut and what I've argued is that the issue is not Vumatel but the DFA component that's been bundled into this Maziv entity.

Sure, but how did we get into this situation in the first place? This deal is just a symptom of the deeper malaise in the South African telecommunications industry. The gatekeeping at ICASA, the restrictive licensing conditions for new entrants into the market, etc are at the heart of all of this. Why isn't the CC doing anything about this?

 

[quovadis]

Sure, but how did we get into this situation in the first place? This deal is just a symptom of the deeper malaise in the South African telecommunications industry. The gatekeeping at ICASA, the restrictive licensing conditions for new entrants into the market, etc are at the heart of all of this. Why isn't the CC doing anything about this?

My opinion is that for all the chaos there is this is one sane decision at least as far as the DFA component. It also should be noted that this is a merger approval matter and not an unsolicited intervention. I agree on the issuing of licenses etc to new entrants however you could also argue there are too many unused/underutilised too - at minimum, it should be a use it or lose it with those becoming available for new entrants.

 

[deweyzeph]

My opinion is that for all the chaos there is this is one sane decision at least as far as the DFA component. It also should be noted that this is a merger approval matter and not an unsolicited intervention. I agree on the issuing of licenses etc to new entrants however you could also argue there are too many unused/underutilised too - at minimum, it should be a use it or lose it with those becoming available for new entrants.

I can understand licensing for wireless spectrum allocation, but there shouldn't be any need whatsoever for requiring a license from ICASA to setup a non-wireless network. It's simply nothing but rent-seeking and gatekeeping.

 

[quovadis]

I can understand licensing for wireless spectrum allocation, but there is no need whatsoever for requiring a license from ICASA to setup a non-wireless network. It's simply nothing but rent-seeking and gatekeeping.

In fairness ECNS licensees can dig up your verge and do all manner of infrastructure installation on, under, across public and private property so you might want to have licenses for that?

I'll also just add if you wanted to enter a specific market as a new entrant you wouldn't be doing anything on a national scale so you could get a class license and grow from there. It's only individual licensing that's "invitation" based.

 

[Swa]

Still yet to see an article about why this may not be a good thing.

No, you've just been living under a rock.

I can understand licensing for wireless spectrum allocation, but there shouldn't be any need whatsoever for requiring a license from ICASA to setup a non-wireless network. It's simply nothing but rent-seeking and gatekeeping.

Someone who gets it. In a free economy there shouldn't be any licensing for non-scarce resources. The reasons given don't make sense and there can just be rules around trenching. I find the very idea of a CC to be a socialist concept. In a free economy the role of the CC would be to look out for private interests and fight the regulations that hold it back.

 

[Swa]

My opinion is that for all the chaos there is this is one sane decision at least as far as the DFA component. It also should be noted that this is a merger approval matter and not an unsolicited intervention. I agree on the issuing of licenses etc to new entrants however you could also argue there are too many unused/underutilised too - at minimum, it should be a use it or lose it with those becoming available for new entrants.

Why do mergers need approval in a free market? As a libertarian I find even the idea to be an abomination. What you keep failing to address is that it's government regulations over the last 30 years that have gotten us here so government regulations can never fix it. If the CC shifted its focus from what companies are allowed to do to what government is allowed to do DFA wouldn't be any concern.

 

[deweyzeph]

Why do mergers need approval in a free market? As a libertarian I find even the idea to be an abomination. What you keep failing to address is that it's government regulations over the last 30 years that have gotten us here so government regulations can never fix it. If the CC shifted its focus from what companies are allowed to do to what government is allowed to do DFA wouldn't be any concern.

This 100%. The very fact that mergers between private companies need CC approval is a complete anathema to the principles of a free market. First government makes it difficult for new entrants to enter a market by requiring unnecessary regulation and licensing, and then it sends in the heavies from the CC when private companies do the things they need to do to survive under the restrictive environment the government itself has created.

 

[quovadis]

No, you've just been living under a rock.

There's been an article on this site regarding why this being approved would be a bad thing?

Someone who gets it. In a free economy there shouldn't be any licensing for non-scarce resources. The reasons given don't make sense and there can just be rules around trenching. I find the very idea of a CC to be a socialist concept. In a free economy the role of the CC would be to look out for private interests and fight the regulations that hold it back.

So now roads, sidewalks and contiguous land is non-scarce?

Why do mergers need approval in a free market? As a libertarian I find even the idea to be an abomination. What you keep failing to address is that it's government regulations over the last 30 years that have gotten us here so government regulations can never fix it. If the CC shifted its focus from what companies are allowed to do to what government is allowed to do DFA wouldn't be any concern.

Because anti-competitive behavior exists.

This 100%. The very fact that mergers between private companies need CC approval is a complete anathema to the principles of a free market. First government makes it difficult for new entrants to enter a market by requiring unnecessary regulation and licensing, and then it sends in the heavies from the CC when private companies do the things they need to do to survive under the restrictive environment the government itself has created.

Ignoring the fact that Vodacom and Remgro are public companies you'd be ok with let's say Vodacom buying MTN, Telkom Mobile & Cell C tomorrow? Or any dominant player buying its competitors? How about a dominant player buying up common infrastructure used by all the players in a particular industry?

 

[deweyzeph]

There's been an article on this site regarding why this being approved would be a bad thing?

So now roads, sidewalks and contiguous land is non-scarce?

Because anti-competitive behavior exists.


Ignoring the fact that Vodacom and Remgro are public companies you'd be ok with let's say Vodacom buying MTN, Telkom Mobile & Cell C tomorrow? Or any dominant player buying its competitors? How about a dominant player buying up common infrastructure used by all the players in a particular industry?

You can't just go dig up a sidewalk no matter how many ECNS licenses you have. You still have to get a wayleave agreement in place which you would have to do no matter whether you had an ECNS license or not. The license itself doesn't just give you permission to go dig up wherever you want, so then why bother with the license?

To be clear when I say private company, I mean a company in the private sector, not an SEO or some other government owned entity. As long as there are no legislative barriers in place to prevent new entrants into the market, I don't have a problem with anybody buying anybody out. It's the regulatory framework itself that makes these mergers problematic because of their rent-seeking exclusive nature that make it so difficult for new entrants to get into the market. In a truly free market there is no such thing as anti-competitive behaviour because anti-competive behaviour would soon be punished and weeded out by new entrants to the market, so long as there is open and free access to the market.